Hue shift, soft proof to print - Calibrated/Profiled Monitor

[tommarasco]

Hi folks, a quick question for you.  I'm printing with a Canon PRO-1000 and a PRO-4000 on Ilford GFS.  My monitor is a BenQ 270c and calibrated with a i1Pro 2, calibrated and profiled at 80cd/m and D65.  I've just performed a "common" calibration on the printers using Canon papers and am using Ilford profiles.  My issue is the oranges/yellows are not matching the soft proof.  I'm evaluating them under Waveform D50 lights (and daylight).  Could this be a profile issue?   I did a test with Canon PPPSG and the result was slightly better, but still not what I'd like to see.  Any insight would be a huge help.  Attached are very un-scientific images to attempt to illustrate what I'm experiencing.  Of course the cell phone picture isn't going to provide an accurate representation, but the hues are similar in the lighter areas.

[ColourPhil]

Hi,
You may want to try calibrating to a lower colour temp than 'D65', as you say your viewing is 'D50'?
Cheers,
Phil

[tommarasco]

Hi,
You may want to try calibrating to a lower colour temp than 'D65', as you say your viewing is 'D50'?
Cheers,
Phil

Thanks Phil.  I recall reading something in Andrew Rodney’s book that calibrating at D65 is common practice due to the nature of digital devices and our perception of color, I may be misquoting though.  It’s only this hue that is giving me issues. I plotted the image data in ColorThink against the paper and it’s all in gamut except for the white point. 

[digitaldog]

Thanks Phil.  I recall reading something in Andrew Rodney’s book that calibrating at D65 is common practice due to the nature of digital devices and our perception of color, I may be misquoting though.  It’s only this hue that is giving me issues. I plotted the image data in ColorThink against the paper and it’s all in gamut except for the white point.

No device other than that object 93 million miles away can actually produce D65 (which is itself an average of many actual measurements made in the 1960's from differing devices all over the world then averaged).
The right value for display calibration is whatever number produces a visual match (to the soft proof ideally):
 
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

[tommarasco]

No device other than that object 93 million miles away can actually produce D65 (which is itself an average of many actual measurements made in the 1960's from differing devices all over the world then averaged).
The right value for display calibration is whatever number produces a visual match (to the soft proof ideally):
 
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

It was something I read on the X-rite website here that quoted your book.  COuld you elaborate for me? Would calibrating at D50 cause me more issues than it's worth?  I'll check out your video as well, thank you sir!  I'm using a dual monitor setup and my Windows default profile is set to the BenQ.  Thanks for your insight!

[Ernst Dinkla]

It was something I read on the X-rite website here that quoted your book.  COuld you elaborate for me? Would calibrating at D50 cause me more issues than it's worth?  I'll check out your video as well, thank you sir!  I'm using a dual monitor setup and my Windows default profile is set to the BenQ.  Thanks for your insight!

My Beng SW2700PT is set to 5200K L110. My customers will display their prints to unknown light (at least to me unknown most of the time) but it would be rare if it resembles anything between 5000 and 6500K. I have display lamps here of about 3500-4000K. And several viewing lights ranging from 5500K to 2700K for different purposes where I know the display conditions, the 4000K halogen used mainly. Most of my papers are neutral with low or no OBA content.

Where your link says 'Most photographic papers' I guess the ones with OBA content are referred to and so quite a cool paper white can be expected. That combined with a viewing light of 5000 / 5500K that has been the norm for a long time.  Your practice of viewing light, display conditions and media types may not fit that general rule. If your prints are not viewed in both conditions: sitting on the porch with a cloudy sky and indoors in winter by tungsten light then you should not adapt to a rule like that. It was a fine rule when magazines printed on OBA filled paper set the norm some decades ago.

80 cd/m² is low. Do you have ambient light that suits that? Viewing light accordingly? While it is good to match display with viewing light there is also a limitation on color perception when the lights are dimmed. Not to mention the Kruithof curve, the less light the more we tend to prefer a warmer light. I wonder if the last plays a role in your setting. The Ilford GFS has some OBA but is near neutral. Lab b -0.9

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

        T
SOLI  AIR
        D

[digitaldog]

It was something I read on the X-rite website here that quoted your book.  COuld you elaborate for me?

Yes. The numbers are all over the map: http://digitaldog.net/files/22Thecolorofwhite.pdf  Standard Illuminants are exact colors from averages of measurements made all over this planet then averaged from sunlight.
The RIGHT numbers are those that produce a visual match. Your CCT 5000K display can be way different from mine.
And what the X-rite piece from the book states that I suppose needs formatting is this:
....when working with photographic paper, calibrating to D65 may produce a better screen-to-print match.
May. May not.
The idea that you're got a so called "D50" lightbox means you must use D50 (or even D65) for calibration of a display is a very possible false narrative. So again, as stated earlier and in the video: The actual numbers that produce a match between display and viewing booth ARE the right numbers. To put it another way, the numbers that don't produce a match are the wrong numbers.

[tommarasco]

My Beng SW2700PT is set to 5200K L110. My customers will display their prints to unknown light (at least to me unknown most of the time) but it would be rare if it resembles anything between 5000 and 6500K. I have display lamps here of about 3500-4000K. And several viewing lights ranging from 5500K to 2700K for different purposes where I know the display conditions, the 4000K halogen used mainly. Most of my papers are neutral with low or no OBA content.

Where your link says 'Most photographic papers' I guess the ones with OBA content are referred to and so quite a cool paper white can be expected. That combined with a viewing light of 5000 / 5500K that has been the norm for a long time.  Your practice of viewing light, display conditions and media types may not fit that general rule. If your prints are not viewed in both conditions: sitting on the porch with a cloudy sky and indoors in winter by tungsten light then you should not adapt to a rule like that. It was a fine rule when magazines printed on OBA filled paper set the norm some decades ago.

80 cd/m² is low. Do you have ambient light that suits that? Viewing light accordingly? While it is good to match display with viewing light there is also a limitation on color perception when the lights are dimmed. Not to mention the Kruithof curve, the less light the more we tend to prefer a warmer light. I wonder if the last plays a role in your setting. The Ilford GFS has some OBA but is near neutral. Lab b -0.9

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

        T
SOLI  AIR
        D

Thank you for this insight!  A lot to think about. This image is not very important to me, but I'm trying to solve the difference for the sake of learning.  I will perform another calibration and give your suggestions a go. 

Yes. The numbers are all over the map: http://digitaldog.net/files/22Thecolorofwhite.pdf  Standard Illuminants are exact colors from averages of measurements made all over this planet then averaged from sunlight.
The RIGHT numbers are those that produce a visual match. Your CCT 5000K display can be way different from mine.
And what the X-rite piece from the book states that I suppose needs formatting is this:
....when working with photographic paper, calibrating to D65 may produce a better screen-to-print match.
May. May not.
The idea that you're got a so called "D50" lightbox means you must use D50 (or even D65) for calibration of a display is a very possible false narrative. So again, as stated earlier and in the video: The actual numbers that produce a match between display and viewing booth ARE the right numbers. To put it another way, the numbers that don't produce a match are the wrong numbers.

Great, thanks for the clarification and insight as always!